ABSTRACT
Summary This study made an economic evaluation of several alternative pasture improvement programs on beef farms in northern Minnesota. Three questions were addressed relative to several pasture improvement systems. These were (1) Will it pay? (2) Is there a cheaper way? and (3) Is there a more profitable system for a particular farm resource situation? Partial budgeting and computerized linear programming techniques were used to analyze pasture cost and return data obtained from several ranches in northern Minnesota. Study results show that rented pastures, when available, provided the cheapest source of additional summer feed, and that legume pastures provide cheaper sources of summer feed than fertilized bluegrass in northern Minnesota. However, if cropland is suitable for growing wheat that will average over 2,688 kg/ha or sunflowers that will yield over 1,334 kg/ha, bluegrass pasture should be fertilized so as to release acreage for cash crop production. Also, if hay is not available for purchase, or if hay prices jump significantly over the prices that prevailed in recent years (as they did after droughts of 1976 and 1980), grass fertilization becomes profitable. At the relatively low hay prices usually prevailing in northwestern Minnesota, it is more profitable to buy hay and feed it as supplement during short pasture periods than to fertilize bluegrass pasture. If birdsfoot trefoil can be successfully established it can compete as a pasture crop with alfalfa in northern Minnesota. Using average feeder-cattle price relationships, the “best” beef program was consistently a cow-yearling program with heifer feeders sold in the spring and yearling steers sold in the fall. However, when the feeder price break comes, there usually are a couple of years when the cow-calf program is superior. It appears from an economic standpoint that pasture renovation is superior to nitrogen fertilization of bluegrass pasture in northern Minnesota. However, pasture land that can be used for cropland might best be converted to other crops, and the remaining ha might then be fertilized in order to carry more beef cattle—at least during the stage of the cattle cycle when returns to the cow herd are likely to be above average.
